MennoSota
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,102
- Age
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Married
I have a household. No infants. Proven.
Next.
Salvation - Part 2
- Thread starter MoreCoffee
- Start date
- Status
Next.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2015
- Messages
- 32,649
- Age
- 57
- Gender
- Female
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Have you ever used birth control? They didn't have that.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,199
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
:smirk:
I admire your optimism ....
Imagine expecting to convince a credobaptist chap that a household includes children??!!!
Aint ever going to happen
honest
:smirk:
MennoSota
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,102
- Age
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Married
Proof is in what is said, not in what you infer into what is said.
What we know is that there was a household. What we don't know is if there were infants who were newly born in the household. Creating a doctrine from silence is a dangerous thing.
Arsenios
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2018
- Messages
- 3,577
- Location
- Pacific North West
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Eastern Orthodox
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Single
Well it is true that in those days infanticide was indeed practiced...
And they did have and use abortifacient herbs...
But your post modern absence of children in your household...
Well, maybe we could understand that fact more reasonably...
Oh, HOW COULD we interpret that fact??
There MUST be a more LOGICAL explanation...
What COULD that possibility possibly BE?
Aaah yes -
I have it now...
The god of rational inference strikes again!!
That fact PROVES to all...
Beyond a shadow of doubt...
With no questions even imaginable...
Not even to hard core God hating atheists...
That what my dyslexic friend always says to them is true:
"There IS a doG!"
Arsenios
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Thus the ABSURDITY of your constant claim...
You perpetual claim that "Every Baptism that happens to be recorded in the New Testament was of those OVER the age of X and AFTER they had given adequate public proof of their faith in Christ." Your constant claim, "EVERY Baptism was AFTER the receiver was already saved."
Friend, if you would stop and THINK about what you post, you yourself would realize your constant errors....
I agree. Which is why your dogmatic statement "EVERY BAPTISM was if those already saved and over the age of X" to support two new baptism dogmas, Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism, is condemnable. Stop and THINK about what you post.
Thus those wackedoodle German radical synergists inventing out-of-the-blue two new dogmas: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism (as well as a dogmatic practice, immersion) is wrong, as many keep TRYING to convey to you. Those Anabaptists invented these new dogmaas NOT because of any Scripture (they have none) but because they were radical synergisits who held that those under the age of X cannot do their own part in the salvation of themselves and held to a small "god" simply unable to do much without the aid of smart, able people over a certain age. You have been parroting the new tradition of your denomination, offering NOTHING in Scripture to support these two new dogmas and without using the synergism arguments their inventors used, in other words, from silence. Two new dogmas (and a new practice) - all from SILENCE.
MennoSota said:
How absurd.
No. Just because YOUR household currently only contains those over the magical age of X and those who gave adequate public proof of their faith prior to baptism does not PROVE that ergo the families in Acts 16:15 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 were also all over the age of X and had FIRST proven their faith BEFORE they were baptized. You keep coming up with these really absurd dogmatic statements.
- Josiah
.
.
Last edited:
Arsenios
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2018
- Messages
- 3,577
- Location
- Pacific North West
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Eastern Orthodox
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Single
Oh you rotten child!
Stealing MY line!!
And then using it to taunt a nice person like Menno!
And then diving into the deep, dark and dank denial of hope embracing such depravity of despair!
And then...
Having dragged his nose on over to the offence...
Rubbed it in its liquidity and vapours...
And smacked him with the loosely rolled up newspaper,
Making loud scary noises but no damage...
You THEN call it HONEST???
D'Accord!
Humor can be good medicine...
Arsenios
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,199
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Oh you rotten child!
Stealing MY line!!
And then using it to taunt a nice person like Menno!
And then diving into the deep, dark and dank denial of hope embracing such depravity of despair!
And then...
Having dragged his nose on over to the offence...
Rubbed it in its liquidity and vapours...
And smacked him with the loosely rolled up newspaper,
Making loud scary noises but no damage...
You THEN call it HONEST???
D'Accord!
Humor can be good medicine...
Arsenios
I did chuckle quite a lot as I wrote that post
MennoSota
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,102
- Age
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Married
Well it is true that in those days infanticide was indeed practiced...
And they did have and use abortifacient herbs...
But your post modern absence of children in your household...
Well, maybe we could understand that fact more reasonably...
Oh, HOW COULD we interpret that fact??
There MUST be a more LOGICAL explanation...
What COULD that possibility possibly BE?
Aaah yes -
I have it now...
The god of rational inference strikes again!!
That fact PROVES to all...
Beyond a shadow of doubt...
With no questions even imaginable...
Not even to hard core God hating atheists...
That what my dyslexic friend always says to them is true:
"There IS a doG!"
Arsenios
It would be wise for you to simply say that the Bible is silent regarding infant baptism.
This would be much better than a denomination creating a theological means of salvation from silence and then teaching its members that infant baptism saves them.
Such dogma has pointed millions of ignorant people toward hell while they imagined themselves to be heaven bound.
MennoSota
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,102
- Age
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Married
There is no absurdity to observing the facts, Josiah. The fact is this: Nowhere in all of scripture is there a recording that infants were baptized. Not one instance. Ask yourself this question. "Why did God choose to be completely silent regarding infant baptism?" Then ask this second question. "Why does my denomination teach a dogma that is not found in the Bible?" "Why do I cling to tradition over God's word?"
These are important, reflections you should be considering. Yet, you refuse to do so.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Ok. Then prove that "every baptism recorded in the Bible was of one who FIRST surpassed their Xth birthday and FIRST publicly proved their faith in Jesus." Show that your claim is a FACT: "When water is associated, it is always after a person has been saved" Prove that to be a fact, start with 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15.
And prove that "My household - no infants. Proof!" proves that ergo it is a FACT that there were no persons under the age of X and no persons who had not FIRST publicly proven their faith in Jesus BEFORE they were baptized in the households of 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15
Here's that silly, absurd rubric you have been parroting since you came here... the one you yourself reject and never follow... the one you won't discuss or permit accountable .... but you just keep parroting it over and over and over.... this SILLY idea that we can only do what happens to be recorded as done in the NT. THINK ABOUT THIS.
Friend, you post on the internet: Where is that recorded as having been done in the NT. So, why are you doing it, it violates your whole premise!
Does your congregation have a website? A youth group and youth pastor? Does it use powerpoint? Books? Does it use a baptismal tank? Does it have Gentiles administering baptism? Does it give Communion to women? Does it permit Baptisms of African-Americans or American-Natives? When you can show that you do NOTHING that is not clearly recorded as having been done in the Bible... when you can prove as a "FACT" that no Baptist does anything that is not recorded as done in the NT, then you will have a point (but you can't make it on the internet....)
.... remember, you are the one supporting two new denominational Dogmas invented entirely out of the blue with NOTHING in Scripture, out of "silence" as you yourself admit: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism (and a dogmatic embrace of full immersion). Where does the Bible state, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday!!!" Quote the verse. Or is this new dogma of yours formed from SILENCE? Where does the Bible state, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath first publically and convincably chanted the Sinner's Prayer?" Quote the verse. Or are these two new Anabaptist dogmas of yours formed from SILENCE, as you put it? Are you simply shooting yourself in the foot, my friend, over and over and over and over and over again?
Friend, there's the absurdity of the synergistic Anabaptist argument you keep parroting: Just because something isn't INCLUDED means its EXCLUDED. Ah, THINK ABOUT the premise you are making! Think!
It means you can't love Americans because the Bible just says to "love" it doesn't specially say this INCLUDES Americans so according to you, it's forbidden to love an American (and btw, there are no examples of such happening the the Bible). The command to forgive doesn't say Republican judges so by your premise, we are forbidden to forgive Republican judges. By your premise, a Baptist can't teach the word because the Bible only says to teach the word, where does it say, "And this include Baptists!" By your premise, we can murder women because the command is "do not kill" where does it say, "And this includes women?" Friend, you have it BACKWARDS. Do you see the absurdity of this premise you keep parroting? We INCLUDE unless there is an EXCLUSION. Your premise is silly - and dangerous. You don't accept it so why make it your foundational premise? Think about that.
Ask yourself that.
Why does the Anabaptist denomination now teach two dogmas (Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism) that you've documented are not found in the Bible? I can tell you: The Anabaptists who invented these two new dogmas out of thin air did so because of their radical synergism. Babies can't DO what we all must DO in order to contribute our part to the salvation of ourselves. They had no verses from Scripture (yes, as you point out, it was ENTIRELY from SILENCE) and instead had to lean on that silly idea you repudiate every time you post on the internet (and especially when you speak out against abortion) . You are just parroting the tradition of your denomination.... which you keep proving, you don't accept. You aren't a synergist and obviously you don't accept that we are forbidden to do something unless it is expressly recorded as being done in the Bible. These are important, reflections you should be considering. Yet, you refuse to do so.
.
Last edited:
MennoSota
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,102
- Age
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm not trying to prove an age of X. I'm asking for biblical evidence that unsaved people were baptized. I'm asking you to prove that infants are saved before they are baptized.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Diversion.
You have stated, "Every baptism recorded in the Bible was of one who FIRST was a believer!" (this is the Credobaptism dogma of your denomination you are parroting). And "Every baptism recorded in the Bible was of one OVER the age of X!" (This is the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of your denomination you are parroting). You say we should disregard a denomination's spin, but that's ALL you done; you say we must have words in the Bible that state our position, but you've offered NONE for either of the new Baptism dogmas invented by the Anabaptists. You say we are to go by FACTS (not tradition) but you've offered NO facts to support the two new dogma traditions you are parroting.
What FACTS can you present that prove Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism? You are the one insisting on FACTS.
What WORDS OF SCRIPTURE do you have to prove Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism? You are the one insisting on words found in the Bible.
And what do you have to support your premise that if a group isn't specifically mentioned as included, it thus is dogmatically excluded and forbidden?
And what do you have to support your premise that we can't do anything unless it is clearly recorded as having been done in the NT?
Why does everyone ELSE need to PROVE THE FACTS but you just endlessly dodge, divert, ignore?
Why does everyone ELSE need to exclude denominational tradition when all you do is perfectly parrot it, no matter what, over and over and over?
Why does everyone ELSE need to accept silly premises and rubrics that you yourself reject and never follow?
There are two Anabaptist dogmas you keep promoting: Anti-paedobaptism and Credobaptism. Where is the FACTS to support them? Where are the WORDS IN THE BIBLE that state them? When you state, as a dogmatic fact, "EVERY BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE WAS ALWAYS AFTER the people choose Jesus, then prove such was the case in 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15.
.
MennoSota
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,102
- Age
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Married
No diversion.
1) Is there infant baptism revealed in scripture?
2) Can infants be saved before they are baptized?
The first must be proven to have actually happened. The second must be shown in scripture.
The argument I receive is a two fold inference.
First, the word "household" is inferred to mean infant was baptized.
Second, John the Baptist being moved by the Holy Spirit in the womb is inferred to mean he was saved while in the womb.
Both are inferred, not proven.
However, an supposed iron clad dogma has been created around two inferences whereby humans are being told they are saved by a ceremony they underwent, which they cannot recall.
Yet, the person questioning such inference is being told that he must prove an inference wrong? How odd is that dialogue?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Friend, it's undeniable - it's ALL you've done on this topic since you came to CH.
Is there a verse that says, "And a person UNDER the age of X was baptized." No. But then is there a verse that says "And an Anglican taught the Word" Nope. Is there a verse that says, "And a woman was given Holy Communion?" No. Is there a verse that says, "And Bob posted on the internet? No. What we are is told to baptize - and there is no verse, "BUT thou canst NOT baptize any who are under the age of X, have blonde hair, were born in the Americas or Australia or who are stupid."
Of course. John the Baptist was saved before he was born. God can give faith to whomever he wants, he is NOT rendered impotent because of one's age, race, color, IQ or ability to adequately and publicly prove something.
Why? Do you forbid Americans to be taught the Word because that never happened in the Bible? Do you forbid people to post on the internet because that never happened in the Bible? Do you refuse to allow Gentiles to administer Baptism or women to receive Communion because it cannot be shown that ever happened in the Bible?
No. You dogmatically stated that the households in 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15 could NOT include anyone under the age of X or anyone not previously a Christian because YOUR household doesn't.
And you insisted - several times - that it those households did NOT have anyone under the age of X or not previously a Christian because... well... you said so. "EVERY BAPTISM in the Bible was ALWAYS AFTER they had come to faith and celebrated their Xth birthday." You just dodge whenever you asked to show that 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15 says that. You don't seem to care what the Bible says, you are just parroting Anabaptist tradition.
The two Anabaptist iron-clad dogma inventions: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism are created out of thin air, extensions of their radical synergism and their silly point that we can't do anything (like post on the internet, have baptism tanks, and pass around communion with little cut up pieces of white bread and plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice) unless it is clearly recorded as having been done in the Bible. You keep parroting these two new denominational traditions. Endlessly. Mindlessly.
I've flately denied that. So has everyone else at CH and in all the world that I know of. This profoundly SILLY statement has been addressed over and over and over and over - for many months now - but you always ignore it, always divert, always just keep parroting the Anabaptist tradition - without thought.
Again, yet again, still one more time: JESUS IS THE SAVIOR. No other person, act, work, accomplishment, name, philosophy, church, club, nation, army, economy, piece of jewlery or clothing, food, drink, or anything else in all of creation is or was or can be the Savior - in whole or in part, now or ever. I don't know how anyone can be clearer. And we've said this to you over and over and over and over.
Again, yet again, still one more time (as if you'd read this): what I reject is your premise that if ANY action is involved, God is rendered impotent (God being so small and weak in synergism) - it MUST be by fiat or God can't do it. ANY human act or physical means makes God scream and makes God impotent. I reject that. And funny, so do you. BUT you keep repeating things - parroting the Anabaptist tradition - endlessly, mindlessly - even though YOU YOURSELF don't agree with it. It's amazing.
See posts 111 and 113
- Josiah
.
Last edited:
Arsenios
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2018
- Messages
- 3,577
- Location
- Pacific North West
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Eastern Orthodox
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Single
You are arguing that there are no infants and children in households...
And this proves that not only do you not know what a household is, you argue against the historical understanding...
And now you are saying that Christ failed because of the historical and Biblical understanding of the Baptism of Children, and that the "elementary tenet of the Faith, the Doctrine of Baptisms" was falsely taught because YOUR DENOM figured out from your English version what the Bible REALLY means...
You might want to follow the other three fingers of that finger of accusation against Christ and Baptism and history that are all pointing back to its own source...
Christ taught the dogma of Baptism...
Everyone except you got it right...
Christ did not fail teaching Baptism...
Your doctrine is false...
Arsenios
MennoSota
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,102
- Age
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Married
I am stating outright that the Bible is completely silent regarding whether infants were baptized.
I am stating outright that you and others have a dogma built entirely upon silence.
Inference and imagined implied thinking does not a doctrine make.
Infant baptism is an unsupportable teaching in scripture. It is propped up by projecting images into the Bible. It is not taught anywhere in scripture. Not one place in scripture.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
So you reject the Baptist dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism and repudiate the Baptist denial of all baptisms given before the receiver celebrated their Xth birthday. Glad you FINALLY came to that conclusion, after all these years! Yup, Anti-Padeobaptism is an unsupportable Baptist dogma in scripture. It is propped up by projecting images and radical synergism into the Bible. It is not taught anywhere in scripture. Not one place in scripture.
Of course, the Bible is also silent about any demand that FIRST the receiver must give adequate public proof of their faith in Christ, the other Baptist dogma, Credobaptism. I realize, you have persistently insisted that "baptism in the Bible is ALWAYS of those who already were saved." A bit of Baptist tradition you have parroted over and over. But of course, as we all realize, that's false (see 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15) and a very silly rubric that you obviously reject and don't follow. So, what about that other Baptist dogma those radical synergistic German wackedoodles invented FROM SILENCE in the 16th Century, Credobaptism? Obviously, Credobaptism is an unsupportable teaching in scripture. It is propped up by projecting images and radical synergism into the Bible. It is not taught anywhere in scripture. Not one place in scripture. There goes the whole Baptist tradition on Baptism....there goes Baptist baptism dogma.
See posts 111, 113 and 115
.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,760
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
You are certainly correct on this point. Nowhere in the New Testament is there an age requirement given for baptism, yet we are instructed that baptism is important for all people of all nations.
But are we inferring something? And is it wrong to infer such?
Our Anabaptist friend infers all over the place as, for example, when he infers that the household in question was absent minor children (for which there is no evidence or logic at all). And what is the reply to that criticism? Well, at that point, the idea is floated that the household referred to in scripture was made up of servants, visiting relatives, the homeowner's adult son who lived in the basement while looking for work, etc. -- anything but the most likely people, the minor children! And remember also that, for the verse to be correct, every last one of these consenting adults would have to have gone along with the decision made by the head of household, whereas there would be no such issue when it came to baptizing any minor children.
.
Last edited:
MennoSota
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,102
- Age
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Married
I state this. If Baptists agree, fine.If Lutherans agree, fine. I am not tied by an umbilical cord to a denomination like you are.
Baptism, in the Bible, is never given to an unsuspecting person, apart from their awareness of what is happening.
Baptism, in the Bible, is either John the Baptists baptism of repentance, which has nothing to do with salvation, or it is baptism, after salvation, which symbolizes the work that the Holy Spirit did in immersing the Christian into the body of Christ.
Those are the observations I make from scripture.
What I NEVER have observed (and I ask you to show where I am missing this) is an infant being baptized. I do not read about it or observe it anywhere. Therefore, I question the legitimacy of infant baptism. I especially repudiate all inference and/or statement that directly states that an infant has received redemptive salvation by means of water baptism. Such a teaching is false and it has sent many people on a direct path toward hell. If any who receive such a false teaching actually come to saving faith in their lifetime, it is solely by the grace of God, despite the false teaching that person received from their local church or denomination.
That's what I believe. I couldn't care less if some denomination agrees or disagrees with me. I base my view upon scripture alone.
Josiah...you may now go and try to prove scripture wrong, because that is what we are addressing.
- Status